Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 20:27:01 -0200 From: Evandro Nunes <evandronunes12@gmail.com> To: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: netmap-ipfw on em0 em1 Message-ID: <CAG4HiT60JocgP6JRG_g6hL2nUP3oc3q5hK59Q2iT5QC5REhKnw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAG4HiT46ezpTzxCj%2B1PB=Ft-KKFs17f85dtRC8sgzSO%2B35cW=Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAG4HiT4KHG%2Bb2um6-p4szWio8qmxN%2BadO5hO9J5UGPmsa%2BZC5g@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BhQ2%2BhAJZk-Y1Yw2xmHmxSMHpFN_byX94Bq33-th2vrp7q2JA@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4HiT7Mtedoxvc69nEyKp1ZYBidZTBcEKG1L9Mkj_Rqeh4bpA@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BhQ2%2BjOnHX-x=k5=iZtR3=OWfcFBD8WTD_d_VicicJzPevcSw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4HiT5fVCpmJ8uDh4SvVown7-vLCMKJP8-QcaW9LQfpWZEiBA@mail.gmail.com> <20141104221216.GA17502@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <CAG4HiT5YqnnVW3dSzn3tpP4VAkGY7Qg3ZZuZ=vmwGznX8m7u2A@mail.gmail.com> <9547E931-AF82-4F5C-AA22-865E93831A27@freebsdbrasil.com.br> <CAG4HiT46ezpTzxCj%2B1PB=Ft-KKFs17f85dtRC8sgzSO%2B35cW=Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Evandro Nunes <evandronunes12@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Patrick Tracanelli < > eksffa@freebsdbrasil.com.br> wrote: > >> Hey, what you are doing wrong is much more simple than you expect. >> >> > # ./kipfw em1 em2 > & /tmp/kipfw.log & >> > [1] 66583 >> >> Just run ./kipfw netmap:em1 netmap:em2 and this will probably work. >> >> Please remember to redirect kipfw output to somewhere you are not readin= g >> only *after* you are sure the output is showing errors. If you could rea= d >> the output you would probably get something like =E2=80=9Cerror opening = em0=E2=80=9D or >> something like that coming netmap. >> > > hello dear patrick > thank you, yes it did work now > at least it is counting packets > > but things are still weird, even though I have only count and allow rules= , > and yes they are counting packets, when I run kipfw, every packet on em1 > and em2 gets dropped immediately. no matter they are allow rules counting > packets, packets get dropped and machine-A gets completely isolated from > machine-C > > any further help is appreciated > hello everybody, one clear and simple question: is anyone actually using netmap-ipfw on real NICs out there? or has anyone ever used? because every documentation I read, or video I watch, is based on vale NICs, not real ones; documentation is also not clear about or in fact existant regarding real NICs (this is not a complaint, I know netmap-ipfw is experimental and I dont expect it to be rich yet, but I am talking about any sort of doc, readme files, commit messages, mailing list excerpts...), not even the syntax netmap:NIC was clearly mentioned before I was told to do that I read the guy from BSDRP Project mentioning he got down on traffic after enabling netmap-ipfw, I have read the same thing from a guy mr Meyer, and from a couple others in different dates (but mostly in this list here) and everyone seem to gave given up. I started looking at the source code for extras/ and stuff but I am no hacker, and I could not figure out what I could be doing wrong. This is why I ask if anyone actually runs netmap-ipfw on real NICs. Im not asking for a recipe, Im just trying to figure out if I am focusing on testing something that will never work because it lacks a usable piece of code to make it run on real NICs (and I am not capable of coding it myself), or if I still doing something wrong... using netmap-ipfw with VALE ports is shows a very different behavior and works as expected and documented, not on real NICs has a complete different behavior, dropping everything even though it counts packets on an "allow" rule...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAG4HiT60JocgP6JRG_g6hL2nUP3oc3q5hK59Q2iT5QC5REhKnw>